I am just surprised that the FBI is looking for another 2000 people to fight Cyber Crime, don't we have enough people working for the government,
maybe the ones he is looking for are pot smokers that can roll on their dealers so they can make more arrest. this sound fishy to me for them to come
right out and say this.

Go to healthy vegetarian style restaurant or market and you will run into way more pot heads than you will in the junk food aisle at the grocery store
or the candy store. That stereotype just is not true, despite how many people believe it.

Zero tolerance policies, random drug tests are all just a means of thought control.

I rarely succumb to the munchies, I do get them at times, the lion in my gut sometimes speaks loudly, but it does anyway with or without.
I would bet most potheads are skinny as a rake, or should I say lean and fit.

Saying that: pot-->computers is = to cheese-->pizza.

It does not make a person dumb while under the influence, there is no way any skilled job cannot be done while under the influence of cannabis.

Same here in Scotland, IT pro's very rarely get drug tested even though you a working for huge multinationals & I have even worked offshore. Been
working in the IT sector for 20 years and have only been tested once & I was given fair warning.
I think the reason why so many high functioning IT pro's use cannabis is that IT pro's have very active brains, I know from my own experience that
it doesn't so much as slow down my brain processes but I can be much more focused when smoking regularly.
It's also a great tool for creative thinking and that comes in very useful at looking for different ways to hack into a system. People look at IT as
very logical and non creative but you would be very surprised how creative the IT industry is, we are dreamers and creative thinkers so it goes hand
in hand that we would smoke cannabis.

Well, OP? I think I see a great situation in society to draw one of those new lines which will, as legalization progresses, necessarily HAVE to be
drawn.

Where IS the line? Agent? Support tech? Lab worker? Cyber Warrior?

First, I think we need to ask another question, and perhaps the more important one. Who would the policy change impact, if not ALL new hires? I'm
100% against that, by the way.

If we draw the line between those with independent (key word) armed powers of arrest vs. those within the support structure of the FBI who could
never, independently, carry off a catastrophic misjudgment in the routine course of duty? It sounds workable. It won't even really be much choice if
or when the feds make a legal and not just policy shift on the underlying issue itself.

However, for those who can radically alter or even bring to an end, the life of anyone they come into contact with in routine business? I'm not for
any loosening of standards until or unless there is a 100% change of law and those who would be tasked with enforcing it, didn't come on-board in a
state of violating it personally. A Principle thing..lol

That crosses too many other lines of wrong, for the future responsibilities of an armed agent, IMO.

That crosses too many other lines of wrong, for the future responsibilities of an armed agent, IMO.

Kind of a shame this observation wasn't the post immediately following the OP.

Considering the volume of posts in the Posse Comitatus forum, one can only imagine the outcry if a stoned federal SWAT team broke down the wrong door
and machine-gunned an innocent family eating breakfast on a Saturday morning.

a reply to: DietJoke
Not sure I'm following you, but if this leads to complete legalization of pot then they could buy it at any corner shop and bust other still illegal
drugs

It's pretty stupid that this whole thing is still even an issue. The majority of the government leaders are old and out of touch. It's going to
become legal eventually....either with some more years of fighting for it, or by just letting some more years pass to get folks who grew up in the
last 30 or 40 years in to office.

I find it funny that politicians never have to take drug tests or have their credit ratings checked to get their jobs but they expect everyone else
to. I find the drug tests invasive and annoying. And I don't do drugs. It's just another way to take away my freedoms. What I do in my off time is
no ones business but my own.

FBI director James Comey said this week that the bureau may be forced to change its drug policy because the U.S. could not find enough programmers
who did not use marijuana to fight cyber crime.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Comey told the White Collar Crime Institute’s annual conference on Monday that it was going to be difficult to
fill the 2,000 new jobs that Congress had authorized this year.

“I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,”
Comey explained.

This guy seems to get it. He continues:

“And so I believe… that we have to have — we on the federal side — a whole of government approach. We got to figure out how can we support
you,” Comey continued. “You can’t arrest your way out of this problem, but arresting — for us, focusing on the international trafficking
organizations that are flooding the market — is a huge part of the answer.”

I wonder if he'll get any flack from upper management regarding this bit above. He's speaking out of turn considering the Federal Government has
done nothing at all about the issue. Other than say, they won't be doing anything at all, see Colorado and Washington.

Now this conversation isn't about people smoking pot, or wanting to smoke pot, it's about how stupid prohibition laws may in fact bu hurting
America's ability to fight legitimate cyber crime.

Another nail in the coffin for draconian laws. I'm glad they will be changing the practice internally, but it still begs the question:

If Federal Agencies are having to do this, effectively break their own laws to help enforce the good ones, why hasn't the Federal Government started
looking into this more seriously?

~Tenth

Colorado and Washington has nothing at all to do with the Fed really. These are state laws. It is still illegal federally, they have just chosen, at
least for the time being that they are not going to go after anyone for this. But they could if they wanted to.

Colorado and Washington have everything to do with it, because it now forces the Fed to come to a very important decision.

They have 3 choices.

1. Do nothing.
2. Enforce the Federal Laws.
3. Change the Federal laws to line with state's wishes.

Since they've chosen to do #1 so far, my question was doesn't these sorts of events, like the FBI coming out against these draconian federal
policies, make it more likely that the Fed will change to Option 3 in the future?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.